An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[Michael]

There's a difference between reconciling a non-interventionist god and human global suffering, and reconciling the apparently selective interventions of a loving god with the enormous suffering in the world. If god intervenes and does so selectively then there is a huge glaringly obvious problem that has never been reconciled by any christian ever.

I don't personally answer "yes" to every request from my own children, so can you first explain to me why you believe that God is obligated to say "yes" to every human request?

 

[bhsmte]

I don't personally answer "yes" to every request from my own children, so can you first explain to me why you believe that God is obligated to say "yes" to every human request?

To me, the better question is; why would he say yes to so few? When so many christians are praying their tails off for his help. Why would he cherry pick?

 

[bhsmte]

That is "written in the book" by the way.



There is considerable doubt among atheists, but not so much among most theists.



How do I know *any* historical account is entirely true, and completely true in the sense it gives multiple perspectives? IMO you're putting *way* more requirements on that one book than you're imposing on other historical documents.

I don't necessarily assume *every* word attributed to Jesus was uttered exactly as it's written, but I certainly see a pattern in his teachings regardless of which few paragraphs we might omit.



I don't seem to have much trouble reconciling my "faith" in Christ with the world around me, but I don't start by assuming that the purpose of life is for everyone to 'have fun' all the time, or that good people are immune from physical or emotional discomfort while in form.



Well, the US public can't seem to make up it's mind on how to fix our budget problems either. Everyone seems to have their own beliefs about the competency of the President and the Congress too. Contradictions and variations in human opinions are the rule, not the exception. I therefore fail to see why you'd expect all theists to agree on all topics related to God.

What is; 'written in the book" just doesn't carry a lot of weight with me, considering man could have written whatever they liked.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I don't personally answer "yes" to every request from my own children, so can you first explain to me why you believe that God is obligated to say "yes" to every human request?

If one of your children was drowning and the other had a sore thumb, would you attend to the sore thumb or the one that was drowning? Remember, 21,000 people die of hunger and hunger related causes every day, yet people claim that god has intervened on their behalf over all sorts of nonsense. If there is an interventionist god then he clearly isn't doing much intervening, or is doing it in the wrong place. And how do you get around the problem of an omnipotent god selectively deciding who to help. It's like the notorious concept of the deserving and undeserving poor, which has become such a byword for unfairness. If your god can help one, then he can help all, yet clearly doesn't. He lets thousands of unfortunate people who have done nothing wrong except be born in the wrong place at the wrong time die unpleasant deaths every day. There is no way of reconciling a loving omnipotent interventionist god with the realities of what we see in the world. A non-interventionist god, however, would be a concept that fits what we see with astonishing accuracy.

 

[Michael]

If one of your children was drowning and the other had a sore thumb, would you attend to the sore thumb or the one that was drowning?

FYI, by continuously elevating 'physical and easy life' to the "be-all-end-all" of existence, it's skewing the conversation. You and I don't have the power over life and death, nor do we think in terms of "eternity" when "deciding what's right" for any specific individual. God could easily choose to release someone from one physical form for any variety of reasons that I can only speculate about.

Remember, 21,000 people die of hunger and hunger related causes every day,

Why is that 'God's' fault again? Doesn't the Earth produce enough food to feed everyone? Didn't Jesus teach us to share and to love everyone? Why don't we listen?

yet people claim that god has intervened on their behalf over all sorts of nonsense.

How do you know it's "nonsense", or are you just blatantly skewing the conversation again to suit yourself?

If there is an interventionist god then he clearly isn't doing much intervening,

Speak for yourself.

or is doing it in the wrong place.

Again with the playing God routine? Really?

And how do you get around the problem of an omnipotent god selectively deciding who to help.

How about the fact that people selectively ask for starters?

It's like the notorious concept of the deserving and undeserving poor, which has become such a byword for unfairness.

Eh? Jesus hung out with the "riff-raft" of society, not the "elite". Since I can't look into people's hearts, and minds and their futures, I couldn't begin to tell you who might "deserve" what, or who doesn't. Neither can you.

You're blatantly blaming God at this point for the sins of humanity.

If your god can help one, then he can help all, yet clearly doesn't.

You're clearly wrong since he clearly gave us all life. That's 'help'. He didn't strand us upon some pitiful desert planet without the resources to feed ourselves. That's help too. His sun shines on us every day, and it rains abundantly too. That's help. What you seem to want isn't just *help*, it's pure micromanagement by a nanny state/nanny god.

He lets thousands of unfortunate people who have done nothing wrong except be born in the wrong place at the wrong time die unpleasant deaths every day.

We all die "unpleasant deaths" sooner or later. Again however, those "wrong places" aren't actually "wrong places" because of God, they're wrong places because of *wrong choices by selfish and greedy humans*! Libya and to a less extent Syria used to be beautiful places to live just a few years ago. I sure wouldn't want to live there right now however.

There is no way of reconciling a loving omnipotent interventionist god with the realities of what we see in the world.

Sure there are logical ways to reconcile it, in fact there are a lot of ways to reconcile it, including concepts like reincarnation, "soul evolution", and eternal life. In such a scenario, a lifetime in a physical form is akin living a life in a type of "holodeck" experience.

Star Trek once did a whole episode where Picard lived an entire life on a different planet in just a few hours of his real life, including having children, and learning to play a musical instrument. It was all a preprogrammed holographic experience, but it had an intended purpose and it served that purpose.

So long however as you *assume* that the *purpose of life in form* is for God to make everyone physically happy and content all the time, no matter what choices they make in life, and to micromanage the whole planet and every event, nobody can reconcile it.

A non-interventionist god, however, would be a concept that fits what we see with astonishing accuracy.

Says who? It wouldn't fit *my own* experiences in life with any accuracy, let alone *everyone else*! You seem to do a whole lot of *assuming* about the purpose of life, the meaning of life, the motives of God, the motives and actions of other individuals, etc. I simply don't make those assumptions, and lots of people talk about God intervening in their lives. You also seem to assume a lot about other people's experiences (or lack thereof) in life, which aren't even consistent with their testimonies in many cases! How many people claim that God has interceded in their lives?

 

[Michael]

What is; 'written in the book" just doesn't carry a lot of weight with me, considering man could have written whatever they liked.

I understand how you feel, but it does actually say that.

It was the application of *Christ's teachings* to my life that had a tangible effect on my life. It's the living presence of God within (which Jesus helped me find) that has an effect on my life and the lives of others. A book is simply a lifeless book. The Bible is important to me personally because it contains Christ's teachings, but it's the *application* of those teachings that actually leads to internal change. Without that application within, they're mere words without any internal meaning.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

FYI, by continuously elevating 'physical and easy life' to the "be-all-end-all" of existence, it's skewing the conversation. You and I don't have the power over life and death, nor do we think in terms of "eternity" when "deciding what's right" for any specific individual. God could easily choose to release someone from one physical form for any variety of reasons that I can only speculate about.

In other words you don't know and you have no answer. But you think that god allowing thousands to die every day from hunger related causes might be for the best really. This is your way of resolving it? It's all part of god's plan and for the best, but he will still step in and intervene elsewhere as long as you are a well fed christian.

Why is that 'God's' fault again? Doesn't the Earth produce enough food to feed everyone? Didn't Jesus teach us to share and to love everyone? Why don't we listen?

Because an interventionist god can help and he doesn't. It's not rocket science.

How do you know it's "nonsense", or are you just blatantly skewing the conversation again to suit yourself?

No, it's a comparison of course, between those he 'apparently' selectively chooses to help and those he doesn't.

Speak for yourself.

I'm not an omnipotent deity who could relieve any suffering by choice.

Again with the playing God routine? Really?

It seems you don't like having the selectiveness of this omnipotent god pointed out. That's understandable. No one has ever come up with a decent resolution to the problem yet.

How about the fact that people selectively ask for starters?

So dying of a hunger related cause is a choice now, like what you choose as a starter in a restaurant? You may be missing something here.

Eh? Jesus hung out with the "riff-raft" of society, not the "elite". Since I can't look into people's hearts, and minds and their futures, I couldn't begin to tell you who might "deserve" what, or who doesn't. Neither can you.

The fact that you even entertain the idea of people deserving god's intervention is revealing. Especially with the implication of that notion for the 21000 who died today of hunger related causes. All of them in some way non-deserving of god's intervention. Interesting take on things.

You're blatantly blaming God at this point for the sins of humanity.

No, I'm saying that if he selectively helps some then the blindingly obvious fact that he is ignoring the great many who are in a desperate situation through no fault of their own implies your god is making very odd value judgements. Of course the obvious answer is that no one is getting any help, but that's too obvious, apparently.

You're clearly wrong since he clearly gave us all life. That's 'help'. He didn't strand us upon some pitiful desert planet without the resources to feed ourselves. That's help too. His sun shines on us every day, and it rains abundantly too. That's help. What you seem to want isn't just *help*, it's pure micromanagement by a nanny state/nanny god.

No, I'm saying if he does intervene at all, i.e. in your words, he does do some micromanagement, then he is doing it very selectively and very, very arbitrarily and blatantly, unignorably badly. This problem is only fixed if he isn't helping anyone, which obviously he isn't.

We all die "unpleasant deaths" sooner or later. Again however, those "wrong places" aren't actually "wrong places" because of God, they're wrong places because of *wrong choices by selfish and greedy humans*! Libya and to a less extent Syria used to be beautiful places to live just a few years ago. I sure wouldn't want to live there right now however.

Where one is born is not one's own fault. Again, if god can intervene at all then it is obvious where he should be intervening. He isn't, so either he has his priorities wrong or isn't intervening at all.

Sure there are logical ways to reconcile it, in fact there are a lot of ways to reconcile it, including concepts like reincarnation, "soul evolution", and eternal life. In such a scenario, a lifetime in a physical form is akin living a life in a type of "holodeck" experience.

So now being born to live for days or weeks and then die of starvation is all part of god's plan? Great plan. You are implying that areas with high childhood mortality rates are areas where he shoves all the souls who are on a fast track to heaven. What's the point in that? Why even bother with putting people on this planet at all? It's nonsensical.

Star Trek once did a whole episode where Picard lived an entire life on a different planet in just a few hours of his real life, including having children, and learning to play a musical instrument. It was all a preprogrammed holographic experience, but it had an intended purpose and it served that purpose.

So you are quite happy that god can intervene to help someone avoid being hit by a bus, but has other plans for all those dying of hunger related problems today where he is conspicuously not intervening. You are quite happy with that idea? No problems with it at all? Absolutely none? Correct?

So long however as you *assume* that the *purpose of life in form* is for God to make everyone physically happy and content all the time, no matter what choices they make in life, and to micromanage the whole planet and every event, nobody can reconcile it.

No, again we are talking about selective intervention. If he is selectively intervening then his selections are curiously weighted in favour of well fed western christians. Do you think an omnipotent deity who ignores the obvious disaster spots of the world in favour of those who pray the most in fundamentalist areas of america is doing a good job? Seriously?

Says who? It wouldn't fit *my own* experiences in life with any accuracy, let alone *everyone else*! You seem to do a whole lot of *assuming* about the purpose of life, the meaning of life, the motives of God, the motives and actions of other individuals, etc. I simply don't make those assumptions, and lots of people talk about God intervening in their lives. You also seem to assume a lot about other people's experiences (or lack thereof) in life, which aren't even consistent with their testimonies in many cases! How many people claim that God has interceded in their lives?

Oh goodness. Almost every christian on these boards has examples of god helping them. It would be funny if it wasn't so silly and rather sickening in the context of thousands of people dying of hunger related causes every day. A blinkered, self-centred view of the world is almost a prerequisite for these claims. The vertiginous disparity between a god intervening on their behalf while ignoring thousands in horrifying distress is one that never seems to cross their minds, or when it does it is dismiss it with a 'god works in mysterious ways' excuse that does nothing to hide the fact that they have no way of reconciling the glaring problem.

 

[madaz]

Life is a gift that is given (and eventually taken away) from all of us. What do you mean "one man"?




Is any developed nation a lot less wasteful? I kinda doubt it actually.



Why do we as humans allow that to happen every year when we have such abundant resources to work with, and more food than we can eat?

I realize that you and I do not possess the ability to give life, so the loss of life seems unreasonably tragic to us. However, to a being that can give life as well as take it away, that loss may be no more "tragic" to God than changing one's clothes when they get worn out or dirty. In fact it may be a *loving* act to "call them home" rather than allow them to be abused like that for decades. I suspect the most "tragic" part is how little we do as humans to *fix the problem* and how little compassion we have for each other.

You're welcome to play the role of God by the way, but I'd encourage you to stop assuming that the purpose of life from God's perspective is a cushy life on Earth. That certainly wasn't the case for Jesus. It's rarely the case for anyone over the whole of human lifetime.



I don't assume that God is obligated to answer "yes" to every request by every human in every instance if that's what you're asking.



I reconcile it with the fact that unlike me, God has the ability to give life. Furthermore, life is a *transitory* state by design as far as I can tell. *Nothing* lives forever, not humans, nor any other form of life. I therefore don't assume as you do that *life in form* is the be-all-end-all of existence as you seem to assume.



I suppose he said that because he ultimately brought a sword of truth that has divided humanity since his arrival on the planet. You'll notice however that while there were beliefs and objectives that Jesus was willing to *die for*, there were none that he was willing to kill for. In fact when Peter did try to defend him from execution, Jesus admonished Peter, and healed the guard that Peter had injured. That's not exactly a violent response from a guy that knows that he is about to be put to death.

By the way, you're kinda "cherry picking" there aren't you?



I don't ever recall claiming *ownership* of God, nor do I recall using the term "Omni" in a sentence related to the term "God". These seem to be *your* beliefs/assertions.



You are of course quite welcome to do whatever you like, but there are a few things you'll need to think about in terms of how *I* interpret that book. Jesus is the living "Word of God" IMO. I don't tend to "interpret" the Bible as an 'infallible' document, in fact I consider such an attitude to be a bit like "idol worship". I personally see a *very clear* distinction between the sense of morality that Jesus taught, and the sense of morality that Moses adhered to. Whereas Jesus taught "Love your enemies" and "Do not kill" and personally kept those commandments, Moses did not. You're liable to be extremely disappointed if you expect me to defend the actions of Moses or any other OT character of the Bible for that matter.



A plan for us after we leave Earth? Yes. We are however given the freedom to make choices on Earth. We're here to learn to play nice with each other. Some of us learn that lesson. Some not so much. We're all here for a limited time.



You seem more than happy to play the role the Judge of God by *assuming* that life in physical form should be cushy and happy all the time. You seem more than happy to judge God for not adhering to your sense of morality. I fail to see how that's a productive attitude.

Michael if you had concisely addressed my points head on instead of simply just responding with words I would reciprocate the courtesy. It appears now you are just dancing around in an apparent attempt to reconcile what is irreconcilable. I never once assumed that "life in physical form should be cushy and happy all the time". That is a common religious concept. Every little detail about life from my perspective corroborates with an absent anthropomorphic deity of imaginary origin. In other words everything makes sense to me until you insert your god concept into the equation. Shifting the focus of how malevolent your god is, by blaming Moses or any other OT character of the Bible for that matter is evading my point.

And may I add, religious attitudes like this-

However, to a being that can give life as well as take it away, that loss may be no more "tragic" to God than changing one's clothes when they get worn out or dirty.

Only tend to support why we have little compassion for one another.

 

[Michael]

In other words you don't know and you have no answer.

Imagine that. I never professed to be God!

But you think that god allowing thousands to die every day from hunger related causes might be for the best really.

No, I specifically said it was *our* fault. You however wish to blame someone else apparently, but apparently it's a someone else that you don't even believe exists!

This is your way of resolving it? It's all part of god's plan and for the best, but he will still step in and intervene elsewhere as long as you are a well fed christian.

I simply don't recall God interceding on Jesus' behalf the night before Jesus was put to death and he"prayed about it". I don't recall blaming anyone other than humans for such stupidity either. My resolution is for humans to help each other. Lot's of Christians feed others who would otherwise die of starvation by the way. What have you personally done about it recently?

Because an interventionist god can help and he doesn't. It's not rocket science.

That is absolutely non responsive to my questions. That's not an answer, nor is it a valid response to my point. We humans have all the resources that we need to feed everyone on Earth anytime that stop being so greedy an selfish and we *choose* to feed them. Why should God do *our* job again?

No, it's a comparison of course, between those he 'apparently' selectively chooses to help and those he doesn't.

It's your own strawman apparently.

I'm not an omnipotent deity who could relieve any suffering by choice.

Yet you seem to have no problem "judging" one anyway? What in the world makes you believe that "non suffering in physical form" was ever the point of life in the first place? Did Jesus himself lead a "suffering free" existence? If not, why should I expect that?

It seems you don't like having the selectiveness of this omnipotent god pointed out.

The selective aspect is rather obvious. I'll grant you that much.

That's understandable. No one has ever come up with a decent resolution to the problem yet.

Sure they have. They come with solutions in everything from concepts involving reincarnation to eternal life, none of which you've event *tried* to address. You just keep skipping right over them intentionally.

So dying of a hunger related cause is a choice now,

Sometimes. Drug attics do it all the time.

like what you choose as a starter in a restaurant? You may be missing something here.

I'm apparently missing the part where God ever claimed that physical comfort on Earth was his primary goal in life. I'm missing the part where humans get to shirk every bit of responsibility for not sharing Earth's resources and for being so callous, while God get's all the blame.

The fact that you even entertain the idea of people deserving god's intervention is revealing. Especially with the implication of that notion for the 21000 who died today of hunger related causes. All of them in some way non-deserving of god's intervention. Interesting take on things.

It's an interesting take on things alright, but it's all your own strawman apparently.

No, I'm saying that if he selectively helps some then the blindingly obvious fact that he is ignoring the great many who are in a desperate situation through no fault of their own implies your god is making very odd value judgements.

Odd by your standards, and even odd by mine perhaps, but neither of us has power over life and death and nor knowledge of the progress of various souls, or God's intent for them *eternally*.

Of course the obvious answer is that no one is getting any help, but that's too obvious, apparently.

It may be obvious to you, but it's also contradicted by uncounted numbers of accounts of individuals that have claimed exactly the opposite. I guess yours is the only opinion that matters however. Most folks would call that denial.

No, I'm saying if he does intervene at all, i.e. in your words, he does do some micromanagement, then he is doing it very selectively

Possibly.

and very, very arbitrarily

How do you know that it's "arbitrarily" in any way?

and blatantly, unignorably badly.

More judgements from you about the motives of a God that you don't even actually believe in? You have an odd way of arguing points. I hope you *at least* recognize that your elevation of 'creature comfort' to the status of "utmost importance" (to God) isn't shared by all humans.

This problem is only fixed if he isn't helping anyone, which obviously he isn't.

It's only a "problem" because humans are selfish and they have no power over life and death. It's not much of a problem if you have power over life and death however. It may be no more of a "problem" to God than changing your dirty shirt is a "problem" to you.

Where one is born is not one's own fault.

Already you've made an assumption about souls that you can't actually make. Many religions "assume" that souls reincarnate in *many* forms over *many* lifetimes. One's placement in life isn't accidental. One's dharma (mission) in this lifetime and one's karma (previous activity) from past lifetimes play a *primary* role in one's placement in this life. Even *placement* is designed to serve a *long term* (more than one lifetime) goal (soul evolution).

Again, if god can intervene at all then it is obvious where he should be intervening.

It is? Where *should* he be intervening based on *his* criteria rather than yours?

He isn't, so either he has his priorities wrong or isn't intervening at all.

You mean his priorities in life don't seem to center around the concept of creature comfort and that really bugs you apparently.

So now being born to live for days or weeks and then die of starvation is all part of god's plan? Great plan.

Perhaps you might have a real point were you able to demonstrate that humans as a whole are somehow immune from any responsibility, and God's number one duty is creature comfort for everyone on Earth.

You are implying that areas with high childhood mortality rates are areas where he shoves all the souls who are on a fast track to heaven. What's the point in that?

I didn't imply anything of the sort. You did that. I said that *humans* are responsible for letting one another starve to death while Earth gives us *more than ample* resources to feed everyone. It's not God's fault, it's our own selfishness that is at fault. You actually even agree with me, you just won't admit it because it takes all the wind out of your sails.

Why even bother with putting people on this planet at all? It's nonsensical.

It's apparently nonsensical to you primarily because you *assume* that creature comfort on Earth is the entire "point of life" from God's perspective, and it is his most important duty to everyone. All this assumption in spite of the fact that it's illogical to make such an assumption in the first place.

So you are quite happy that god can intervene to help someone avoid being hit by a bus, but has other plans for all those dying of hunger related problems today where he is conspicuously not intervening.

You have a really bad habit of putting words and motives in my mouth (happy, ect), none of which I actually ever said. Apparently you're quite "happy" misrepresenting what I actually said.

You are quite happy with that idea? No problems with it at all? Absolutely none? Correct?

Is so, you'll have no problem quoting me where I said such a thing. I'm simply happy to let God be God without all my personal (and rather ignorant) judgements about his motives.

No, again we are talking about selective intervention. If he is selectively intervening then his selections are curiously weighted in favour of well fed western christians.

So there are no well fed "Eastern atheists"?

Do you think an omnipotent deity who ignores the obvious disaster spots of the world in favour of those who pray the most in fundamentalist areas of america is doing a good job? Seriously?

I think that I enjoy my life. I think that it would be pointless for me to around blaming God for the *obvious* sins of humanity. I don't run around "judging God" as you do because I don't profess to *know* that creature comfort is God's *primary interest* and his duty to begin with.

Oh goodness. Almost every christian on these boards has examples of god helping them.

But of course you discount them anyway.

It would be funny if it wasn't so silly and rather sickening in the context of thousands of people dying of hunger related causes every day.

The truly sickening part is that you and I (and everyone else) aren't doing more to put an end to it while we are here on Earth. What's sickening is how humans treat each other on a daily basis. What's sickening is the complete *lack of responsibility* we take for our actions.

A blinkered, self-centred view of the world is almost a prerequisite for these claims.

No, it's not.

The vertiginous disparity between a god intervening on their behalf while ignoring thousands in horrifying distress is one that never seems to cross their minds, or when it does it is dismiss it with a 'god works in mysterious ways' excuse that does nothing to hide the fact that they have no way of reconciling the glaring problem.

So long as you ignore all the various ways that different religions *do* address these issues (like reincarnation, soul evolution, eternal life), you're simply tilting at windmills of your own design.

 

[bhsmte]

I understand how you feel, but it does actually say that.

It was the application of *Christ's teachings* to my life that had a tangible effect on my life. It's the living presence of God within (which Jesus helped me find) that has an effect on my life and the lives of others. A book is simply a lifeless book. The Bible is important to me personally because it contains Christ's teachings, but it's the *application* of those teachings that actually leads to internal change. Without that application within, they're mere words without any internal meaning.

I realize that is what the books says and other holy books say other things.

 

[bhsmte]

Imagine that. I never professed to be God!



No, I specifically said it was *our* fault. You however wish to blame someone else apparently, but apparently it's a someone else that you don't even believe exists!



I simply don't recall God interceding on Jesus' behalf the night before Jesus was put to death and he"prayed about it". I don't recall blaming anyone other than humans for such stupidity either. My resolution is for humans to help each other. Lot's of Christians feed others who would otherwise die of starvation by the way. What have you personally done about it recently?



That is absolutely non responsive to my questions. That's not an answer, nor is it a valid response to my point. We humans have all the resources that we need to feed everyone on Earth anytime that stop being so greedy an selfish and we *choose* to feed them. Why should God do *our* job again?



It's your own strawman apparently.



Yet you seem to have no problem "judging" one anyway? What in the world makes you believe that "non suffering in physical form" was ever the point of life in the first place? Did Jesus himself lead a "suffering free" existence? If not, why should I expect that?



The selective aspect is rather obvious. I'll grant you that much.



Sure they have. They come with solutions in everything from concepts involving reincarnation to eternal life, none of which you've event *tried* to address. You just keep skipping right over them intentionally.



Sometimes. Drug attics do it all the time.



I'm apparently missing the part where God ever claimed that physical comfort on Earth was his primary goal in life. I'm missing the part where humans get to shirk every bit of responsibility for not sharing Earth's resources and for being so callous, while God get's all the blame.



It's an interesting take on things alright, but it's all your own strawman apparently.



Odd by your standards, and even odd by mine perhaps, but neither of us has power over life and death and nor knowledge of the progress of various souls, or God's intent for them *eternally*.



It may be obvious to you, but it's also contradicted by uncounted numbers of accounts of individuals that have claimed exactly the opposite. I guess yours is the only opinion that matters however. Most folks would call that denial.



Possibly.



How do you know that it's "arbitrarily" in any way?



More judgements from you about the motives of a God that you don't even actually believe in? You have an odd way of arguing points. I hope you *at least* recognize that your elevation of 'creature comfort' to the status of "utmost importance" (to God) isn't shared by all humans.



It's only a "problem" because humans are selfish and they have no power over life and death. It's not much of a problem if you have power over life and death however. It may be no more of a "problem" to God than changing your dirty shirt is a "problem" to you.



Already you've made an assumption about souls that you can't actually make. Many religions "assume" that souls reincarnate in *many* forms over *many* lifetimes. One's placement in life isn't accidental. One's dharma (mission) in this lifetime and one's karma (previous activity) from past lifetimes play a *primary* role in one's placement in this life. Even *placement* is designed to serve a *long term* (more than one lifetime) goal (soul evolution).



It is? Where *should* he be intervening based on *his* criteria rather than yours?



You mean his priorities in life don't seem to center around the concept of creature comfort and that really bugs you apparently.



Perhaps you might have a real point were you able to demonstrate that humans as a whole are somehow immune from any responsibility, and God's number one duty is creature comfort for everyone on Earth.



I didn't imply anything of the sort. You did that. I said that *humans* are responsible for letting one another starve to death while Earth gives us *more than ample* resources to feed everyone. It's not God's fault, it's our own selfishness that is at fault. You actually even agree with me, you just won't admit it because it takes all the wind out of your sails.



It's apparently nonsensical to you primarily because you *assume* that creature comfort on Earth is the entire "point of life" from God's perspective, and it is his most important duty to everyone. All this assumption in spite of the fact that it's illogical to make such an assumption in the first place.



You have a really bad habit of putting words and motives in my mouth (happy, ect), none of which I actually ever said. Apparently you're quite "happy" misrepresenting what I actually said.



Is so, you'll have no problem quoting me where I said such a thing. I'm simply happy to let God be God without all my personal (and rather ignorant) judgements about his motives.



So there are no well fed "Eastern atheists"?



I think that I enjoy my life. I think that it would be pointless for me to around blaming God for the *obvious* sins of humanity. I don't run around "judging God" as you do because I don't profess to *know* that creature comfort is God's *primary interest* and his duty to begin with.



But of course you discount them anyway.



The truly sickening part is that you and I (and everyone else) aren't doing more to put an end to it while we are here on Earth. What's sickening is how humans treat each other on a daily basis. What's sickening is the complete *lack of responsibility* we take for our actions.



No, it's not.



So long as you ignore all the various ways that different religions *do* address these issues (like reincarnation, soul evolution, eternal life), you're simply tilting at windmills of your own design.

In my humble opinion, this is what is obvious to me:

If there is a God, he either could care less about the wellbeing of humans on earth, or, he is not capable of intervening with life on earth.

I don't see how an objective review of the reality of the world we live in, could point in any other direction. This is why, I am an atheist towards the personal God of the bible and agnostic towards a universal God, who DOES NOT intervene at all in affairs on this earth.

 

[Michael]

Michael if you had concisely addressed my points head on instead of simply just responding with words I would reciprocate the courtesy.

Well, it was my belief that I did address your points, but perhaps it wasn't to your personal satisfaction?

It appears now you are just dancing around in an apparent attempt to reconcile what is irreconcilable.

I love it when a conversation starts like that, with absolute statements of faith in their own viewpoints.

I never once assumed that "life in physical form should be cushy and happy all the time". That is a common religious concept.

Then why on Earth would the presence of suffering in the world automatically discount the existence of an intelligent creator? I fail to see the correlation.

Every little detail about life from my perspective corroborates with an absent anthropomorphic deity of imaginary origin.

That is fine and all, except for the fact that you're in the minority position.

In other words everything makes sense to me until you insert your god concept into the equation.

What exactly is *my concept* of God? Exactly which equation were you using?

Shifting the focus of how malevolent your god is, by blaming Moses

I beg your pardon? Moses himself said "Do not kill". Did he kill? Yes or no? Blaming God for the obvious sins of men seems rather goofy from my vantage point.

or any other OT character of the Bible for that matter is evading my point.

So really this is the crux of your issue with my response. You're just 'upset' because I don't "interpret" the Bible exactly the same way that you do?

And may I add, religious attitudes like this-

However, to a being that can give life as well as take it away, that loss may be no more "tragic" to God than changing one's clothes when they get worn out or dirty.

Only tend to support why we have little compassion for one another.

I respectfully suggest that you simply misread what I said.

 

[Michael]

In my humble opinion, this is what is obvious to me:

If there is a God, he either could care less about the wellbeing of humans on earth, or, he is not capable of intervening with life on earth.

In science, ideas are usually "graded" based on how well they describe the observations in question. Since many humans report experiencing such 'intervention', your beliefs don't actually jive with *all of* the observations.

I don't see how an objective review of the reality of the world we live in, could point in any other direction. This is why, I am an atheist towards the personal God of the bible and agnostic towards a universal God, who DOES NOT intervene at all in affairs on this earth.

I understand your position. I simply don't agree with it, and neither do most Christians. God has answered me very 'personally' in my life, but sometimes that answer is simply "no".

 

[Davian]

Michael if you had concisely addressed my points head on instead of simply just responding with words I would reciprocate the courtesy.
...

I'm glad others have noticed this.

 

[Michael]

I'm glad others have noticed this.

Bah. He was just miffed because I wouldn't let him "interpret the Bible" for me.

 

[madaz]

Bah. He was just miffed because I wouldn't let him "interpret the Bible" for me.

No just I'm disappointed that you resorted to evasion techniques because I thought you were willing to address me.

 

[Michael]

No just I'm disappointed that you resorted to evasion techniques because I thought you were willing to address me.

Which specific point do you believe that I failed to address? I'm certainly not about to let you personally "interpret" the Bible for me.

 

[madaz]

Which specific point do you believe that I failed to address?

Specifically this point. It was point 3 from post 512-

3. The bible demonstrates your god is not
omnibenevolent.

To which you dismissed with this-

That depends on how one personally (subjectively) chooses to "interpret" that
book.

So I replied with this-

Michael do you really expect me to accept that? Are you suggesting my
interpretation is incorrect?

You then began to shift the focus away from your god to Moses (and others) by responding with this-

Whereas Jesus taught "Love your enemies" and "Do not
kill" and personally kept those commandments, Moses did not. You're liable to be
extremely disappointed if you expect me to defend the actions of Moses or any
other OT character of the Bible for that matter.

To which I responded-

Shifting the focus of how malevolent your god is, by
blaming Moses or any other OT character of the Bible for that matter is evading
my point.

You then replied which this weired question-

I beg your pardon? Moses himself said "Do not kill". Did
he kill? Yes or no? Blaming God for the obvious sins of men seems rather goofy from my vantage point.

Yes Moses did murder, however you are detracting from my original point here.

Blaming Moses (and other OT characters) for the sins of your god seems rather goofy from my position.

To reiterate-

Your god is not omnibenevolent. That is as plain and simple as 1+1=2.

You can not say that is open to interpretation, get my point?




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I'm going to address the other things I found disappointing.

Then why on Earth would the presence of suffering in the
world automatically discount the existence of an intelligent creator? I fail to
see the correlation.

You removed the correlation by substituting "omnibenevolent" with "intelligent creator".

That is fine and all, except for the fact that you're in
the minority position.

Michael once upon a time, the majority of the worlds population believed the world was flat and natural phenomena like rainbows, tides, lightning/thunder, plagues, eclipses and supernovae were all attributed to god. Was the majority position correct? So I'm sorry your Argumentum ad populum fallacy does not cut it.

I respectfully suggest that you simply misread what I
said.

I most certainly did not misread it Michael, it is was also obvious to bhsmte, Mr Strawberry and Davian.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm certainly not about to let you personally "interpret" the Bible for me.

With all due respect Michael, I wouldn't want to be accountable for your precarious position. Your interpretation of god's omnibenevolence is a method of dealing with your own cognitive dissonance.

I'm just addressing the "elephant in the room", that doesn't mean I'm interpreting your book for you.

So Michael, do you accept your god is not omnibenevolent? Answer this please? Yes or No will suffice.

Kindest regards madaz

 

[Michael]

Yes Moses did murder, however you are detracting from my original point here.

Apparently it's detracting from your point only because you *insist* that I agree with you in accepting every single claim from Moses with respect to his motives, and with respect to God! In other words, I'm just supposed to *believe* Moses without ever questioning anything that he said or did. Sorry, I can't do that.

Moses apparently came down from the mountain, commandments in hand, one if which *clearly* states "Do not kill". He then proceeds to slaughter human beings wholesale. One of the few ways one might try to determine the value of someone's claims is whether or not they apply their own belief systems consistently. Moses didn't do that.

Jesus at the Sermon On The Mount talked about a *very* different sense of morality. It wasn't based on an 'eye for an eye', revenge oriented view of the world. Rather it was based upon a love even your enemy policy. He talked about going two miles if asked to go one. He talked about helping everyone. He talked about *serving* others. He talked about loving everyone.

There were beliefs for which Jesus was willing to *die* for in terms of his spiritual beliefs. There were however *none* that he was willing to kill for. He lived his own values in life. He did not commit violence against other human beings. He was the physical embodiment of the values that he taught. Whatever else we might say about Moses and Jesus, there's absolutely no comparison in terms of how each of them performed in terms of living the moral and spiritual values that they exposed.

Sorry, I am just not *required* to *assume* that everything Moses said was true, and neither are you. In fact you are assuming that *everything* he said is untrue!

Blaming Moses (and other OT characters) for the sins of your god seems rather goofy from my position.

Jesus is my moral mentor, not Moses. I have no trust in Moses, no faith in Moses, no belief that Moses was 'enlightened'. Perhaps in *comparison* to polytheistic views of reality, he was 'closer to the truth' than other religions. In the sense that he was a complete hypocrite in the way he lived his life however, he doesn't impress me much.

Jesus lived a life of *non violence*. He put his life on the line to *help* others, but he also lived his own teachings.

Jesus was the *Messiah" of Judaism, the one that was to 'set it straight', to correct it. He did. "Christianity" IMO is all about Christ, all about living a life devoted to Christ and the teachings of Christ. If you're going to debate me about the meaning of 'Christianity' and what is the most 'valid spiritual interpretation' of the Bible, you're going to at least *try* to see it my way.

To reiterate-

Your god is not omnibenevolent. That is as plain and simple as 1+1=2.

If you can show me that *Jesus himself* was not omnibenevolent, you can make that claim. Otherwise you're talking about your own 'strawman god', not the God I love and believe in.

You can not say that is open to interpretation, get my point?

As a human being entitled to their own subjective opinions about any particular piece of literature, and my *own* beliefs about God, yes, I can. Get my point?

Now I'm going to address the other things I found disappointing.

You removed the correlation by substituting "omnibenevolent" with "intelligent creator".

I'm getting the *distinct* feeling that your disappointment is due to the fact that I'm taking away all your favorite arguments. I'm not letting you make claims about *my beliefs* about God. I'm insisting we stick to words and claims that *I* have made, particularly if you intend to call him "my God". I don't even claim to own God anymore than I own the Universe, but if you're going ascribe beliefs to me, you'll have to limit yourself to my statements and beliefs.

I didn't use any *omni* terms, you did.

Michael once upon a time, the majority of the worlds population believed the world was flat and natural phenomena like rainbows, tides, lightning/thunder, plagues, eclipses and supernovae were all attributed to god. Was the majority position correct? So I'm sorry your Argumentum ad populum fallacy does not cut it.

Ya, and "scientists" still claim that 95 percent of the universe is made of magic stuff too. I'll give you that point, but....

You're pretty much stuck in the role of "skeptic" at this point, much like a 'skeptic' of evolutionary theory, or PC theory. You can't hope to provide any evidence *against* it from the perspective of physics. The best you could hope to do is drag your feet. That's where this conversation ends up in the final analysis.

I most certainly did not misread it Michael, it is was also obvious to bhsmte, Mr Strawberry and Davian.

Your moral judgements about me are most likely based on a whole host of assumptions you personally make about what "Christianity' means. You really don't know what *I personally* believe, other than a few short sentences. Furthermore you can forget trying claim any sort of moral high ground over the concept of "placement" until and unless you folks start to address the *religious mechanisms/beliefs* that address these issues, including eternal lives of souls, and including concepts like reincarnation. Until you address them, you have no right whatsoever to judge me, or God.

With all due respect Michael, I wouldn't want to be accountable for your precarious position.

I *enjoy* defending my faith in Christ. Christians have lived in 'precarious positions' since the very first one walked the Earth. Get over any concept of me 'feeling fear'. It's not going to happen over message board conversation about my faith in Christ.

Your interpretation of god's omnibenevolence is a method of dealing with your own cognitive dissonance.

Your stuffing words in my mouth (omni) is a sure sign of cognitive dissonance. You're asserting *your own* beliefs as my beliefs. Knock it off, and get off your psychological high horse before you hurt yourself.

I'm just addressing the "elephant in the room", that doesn't mean I'm interpreting your book for you.

The elephant in the room is the the large elephant strawman you're building and then calling them *my beliefs*. Stop it! Burn that strawman if you must, but it has nothing to do with my beliefs. Those are *your* beliefs, not mine.

So Michael, do you accept your god is not omnibenevolent? Answer this please? Yes or No will suffice.

No. I accept however that your strawman god is not omni-whatever. I've never used the term "omni" and until you can demonstrate that Jesus isn't *whatever term you chose to use next*, you haven't even talked about *my beliefs* to start with.

 

[madaz]

Michael, If you asked me a specific question about Mickey Mouse and I insisted on responding about Donald Duck, what would that suggest?

Evasion!